SSRN Author: Gabriel J. ChinGabriel J. Chin SSRN Contenthttp://www.ssrn.com/author=201529
http://www.ssrn.com/rss/en-usWed, 15 Jul 2015 11:53:36 GMTeditor@ssrn.com (Editor)Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:53:36 GMTwebmaster@ssrn.com (WebMaster)SSRN RSS Generator 1.0REVISION: The Mistake of Law Defense and an Unconstitutional Provision of the Model Penal CodeAt common law, a defendant’s mistaken belief about the law was no defense, even if that mistake resulted from reasonable reliance on governmental advice. Thus, if a prosecutor or police officer erroneously advised that certain conduct was legal, the government was free to prosecute anyone following that advice. In the mid-1950s, two separate legal doctrines altered the common-law rule. First, the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code included a mistake of law defense; a version of this defense was adopted in many states. A few years later, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibited conviction in those circumstances; the Court cited neither the Model Penal Code nor related criminal jurisprudence, instead relying solely on due process principles. Now, in many states, two distinct mistake of law defenses cover the same situation, one based on the Constitution and another based on the Model Penal Code. However, while the Model Penal Code defense never applies when the ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2534893
http://www.ssrn.com/1375143.htmlFri, 20 Feb 2015 09:12:44 GMTREVISION: Justifying a Revised Voting Rights Act: The Guarantee Clause and the Problem of Minority RuleIn Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to “preclear” changes to their voting practices under Section 5 before those changes could become effective. This Article proposes that Congress ground its responsive voting rights legislation in the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause, in addition to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Court has made clear that the Guarantee Clause is a power granted exclusively to Congress and that questions of its exercise are nonjusticiable. It is also clear from the Federalist Papers and from scholarly writing – as well as from what little the Court has said – that the purpose of the Guarantee Clause is to protect majority rule. That is precisely what was at issue after the Civil War when Congress first used the Guarantee Clause to protect African American votes. As an absolute majority in three states and over forty ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2506356
http://www.ssrn.com/1358488.htmlSat, 13 Dec 2014 14:42:48 GMTREVISION: The Mistake of Law Defense and an Unconstitutional Provision of the Model Penal CodeAt common law, a defendant’s mistaken belief about the law was no defense, even if that mistake resulted from reasonable reliance on governmental advice. Thus, if a prosecutor or police officer erroneously advised that certain conduct was legal, the government was free to prosecute anyone following that advice. In the mid-1950s, two separate legal doctrines altered the common-law rule. First, the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code included a mistake of law defense; a version of this defense was adopted in many states. A few years later, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibited conviction in those circumstances; the Court cited neither the Model Penal Code nor related criminal jurisprudence, instead relying solely on due process principles. Now, in many states, two distinct mistake of law defenses cover the same situation, one based on the Constitution and another based on the Model Penal Code. However, while the Model Penal Code defense never applies when the ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2534893
http://www.ssrn.com/1356866.htmlMon, 08 Dec 2014 12:12:07 GMTREVISION: Justifying a Revised Voting Rights Act: The Guarantee Clause and the Problem of Minority RuleIn Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to “preclear” changes to their voting practices under Section 5 before those changes could become effective. This Article proposes that Congress ground its responsive voting rights legislation in the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause, in addition to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Court has made clear that the Guarantee Clause is a power granted exclusively to Congress and that questions of its exercise are nonjusticiable. It is also clear from the Federalist Papers and from scholarly writing – as well as from what little the Court has said – that the purpose of the Guarantee Clause is to protect majority rule. That is precisely what was at issue after the Civil War when Congress first used the Guarantee Clause to protect African American votes. As an absolute majority in three states and over forty ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2506356
http://www.ssrn.com/1341782.htmlWed, 08 Oct 2014 12:34:28 GMT